California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Sierra Chemical Company

Filing 25

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2) signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/20/14. CASE CLOSED. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ANDREW L. PACKARD (State Bar No. 168690)

LAURIE A. MIKKELSEN (State Bar No. 260313)
Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard
100 Petaluma Blvd. N., Suite 301
Petaluma, CA 94952
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a non-profit
corporation,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
vs.
SIERRA CHEMICAL COMPANY, dba,
NEVADA SIERRA CHEMICAL
COMPANY, an Nevada company,

Case No. 13-cv-0000792−KJM−KJN

STIPULATION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE; ORDER GRANTING
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
[FRCP 41(a)(2)]

Defendant.

18
19
20
21

Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (“CSPA”) and Defendant in the
above-captioned action, stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on or about February 15, 2013, CSPA provided Defendant with a Notice

22

of Violations and Intent to File Suit (“60-Day Notice Letter”) under Section 505 of the

23

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Act” or “Clean Water Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365;

24

WHEREAS, on April 19, 2013, CSPA filed its Complaint against Defendant in this

25

Court, and said Complaint incorporated by reference all of the allegations contained in

26

CSPA’s 60-Day Notice Letter;

27
28

WHEREAS, CSPA and Defendant, through their authorized representatives and
without either adjudication of CSPA’s claims or admission by Defendant of any alleged
-1STIP AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

Case No. 13-cv-00792-KJM-KJN

1

violation or other wrongdoing, have chosen to resolve in full by way of settlement the

2

allegations of CSPA as set forth in CSPA’s 60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint, thereby

3

avoiding the costs and uncertainties of further litigation. A copy of the Parties’ proposed

4

settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) entered into by and between CSPA and

5

Defendant is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference;

6
7
8
9
10
11

WHEREAS, CSPA has submitted the Settlement Agreement via certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (“the agencies”) and
the 45-day review period set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 has now expired;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to by and between
the Parties that CSPA’s claims, as set forth in its 60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint, be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Parties
respectfully request an order from this Court dismissing such claims with prejudice. In

12

accordance with Paragraph 18(b) of the Settlement Agreement, the Parties also request that

13

this Court retain and have jurisdiction over the Parties through September 30, 2015, for the

14

sole purpose of resolving any disputes between the Parties with respect to enforcement of

15

any provision of the Settlement Agreement.

16

Dated: March 11, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

17
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD

18
19

By: /s/ Andrew L. Packard______________
Andrew L. Packard
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE

20
21
22
23

Dated: March 11, 2014

24

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
By: /s/ Andrew H. Perellis______________
(As authorized by L.R. 131)
Attorneys for Defendant
SIERRA CHEMICAL COMPANY

25
26
27
28

-2STIP AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

Case No. 13-cv-00792-KJM-KJN

1

ORDER

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

The court having considered the foregoing, and also having reviewed the letter from
the U.S. Department of Justice filed on March 11, 2014, HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance’s claims against Defendant SIERRA CHEMICAL
COMPANY,

as set forth in CSPA’s 60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint, are hereby dismissed

with prejudice, each side to bear their own attorney fees and costs (except as provided for by
the terms of the accompanying Settlement Agreement). The court having considered the
foregoing, and also having reviewed the letter from the U.S. Department of Justice filed on
March 11, 2014, HEREBY ORDERS
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain and have jurisdiction over the

11

Parties with respect to disputes arising under the Settlement Agreement, attached to the

12

Parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss as Exhibit A, until September 30, 2016.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: March 20, 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3STIP AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

Case No. 13-cv-00792-KJM-KJN